iandayre

GIB does play Lebensohl over reverses, so 3C is forcing over 2D. I have never seen it pass such a bid. Playing a rebid of responder's suit as forcing, there is no need for an artificial 4SF after a reverse. I like the method mcphee describes, but GIB does not play it so I would just set trump with 3C and work on finding out if you belong at the 6 or 7 level. And yes this method is "modern" in the sense that it is post-Goren, but it has been standard in 2/1 back to the days of Walsh. Dick Walsh had already moved to Europe when I began playing but I played against his ex-wife Rhoda on many occasions.

Fine. Correct the bidding deficiencies I listed and I will stop complaining about the card play. I disagree with #2. Often GIB introduces these short suits over non-forcing calls, such as when we rebid a long, strong suit. Often the descriptions foolishly state that the call could have been on "4+" when in reality the bid showed 6 or 7 card length. And most examples we see when GIB passed a forcing bid, it has a perfectly viable option of raising or bidding NT. I also disagree with #3. Taking action over a cue bid is not the same as introducing a new suit when partner has not shown interest in suits other than the one he has bid. Perhaps you are correct about #4, but this is necessary to make GIB a viable bridge option rather than a laughing stock. And no, I wasn't being sarcastic.

The GIB bidding detail is not very detailed in that area. I don't actually know if GIB plays the Weak 6-4 or not. I will try to remember to check the next time the auction goes 1m-1M-1NT, whatever hand I may be holding. I did check and in fact GIB does play Weak 6-4. Apparently this hand was too good, at least as a passed hand.

I think it is remarkable that that programmers have taken the time to give GIB the ability (one which no human defender possesses) to accurately double-dummy analyze a hand such as this at Trick 1. Yet they can't teach it to take simple preferences, stop introducing new 3 and 4 card suits at high levels, or to not pass cue bids. They can't even teach it that, in a recent hand posted here - I believe it was KQ, x, AKJTxxxxxx, V - that 11 tricks are nearly assured and to not stop bidding at the 3 level. Or there was that recent hand where both minors were unbid and it held 6 Diamonds and 2 Clubs, but it bid Clubs. Also I wonder how if it can analyze this hand a Trick 1, why it misdefends so many much simpler hands.

I thought for a moment that I had figured out the double dummy line to make 6H if E plays a small ♠ at T1, but no, it doesn't work. Double dummy problems are not my strong point. In fact, no declarers made the hand unless GIB tossed the ♠10 under the K. Some programming allowance should me made for the fact that even expert declarers are not perfect, much less average players. And why does it pitch the ♠10 if it is the opening lead, but not after a D lead with declarer playing a ♠ at T2? I do agree that the answer is not for GIB to always follow with its smallest card.

First time I have posted about a GIB defensive error. http://tinyurl.com/l5omnbg One can only guess at what bizarre form of electronic "thought" would tell GIB to follow with the ♠10 at Trick 1. Declarer must have a long strong ♠ suit on the auction. Most auctions were the same through 4H. I was the only one to raise to 5♥, two others jumped to 6 and received the same defense. The larger number who bid Blackwood got a ♦ lead and GIB did not throw the ♠10 under the K, so these declarers went down.

I would still make easily on a H continuation. A D or trump shift does give me trouble due to the 4-1 S break. But it's always easy with 3-2 trumps so a great slam. And you're right BB the descriptions definitely have NOT gotten any better.

Although we haven't heard from the programmers in a while, I have seen some evidence of GIB bidding better. Here's an example I couldn't ignore. http://tinyurl.com/poo2b8s In the past GIB really had to have the nuts to cue bid. If it did you were pretty safe in Blackwooding to slam. But on this hand GIB held a very modest collection, albeit with nothing wasted opposite the splinter, and still cuebid 4C on the second round. I did Blackwood into slam and reached the virtually cold 28 HCP with no long suits slam. I really have never seen GIB cue bid with a hand so low in HCP before - but good for it.

Yes, sorry. I see the GIB declarer did not duck at T1. Wonder why.

The ACBL convention card shows the K as the standard lead from this combination vs suit contracts, with the Q standard vs. NT. So yes, the lead of the K vs 1NT is non-standard. In the USA the standard vs. NT is Ace asks for unblock or count, K asks for attitude. I assume the K held the trick, what did GIB play at Trick 2? I would have passed this hand out like a shot.

I completely agree on all points, including your choice of 3D.

Since it is posted here I assume GIB is your partner, but since you have only 9 HCP it is not the usual "human holds best hand" format. Tough to answer as I have no experience playing with GIB in other formats. The only choice I wouldn't consider at all is 3H, the others all have something to recommend them.

The worst call is the pass of 3H. The 2C bidder has not limited the hand, so 3♥is forcing. W has an easy and obvious 3♠

I was thinking about the poll hand some more, and while that hand was solvable, many are not. If GIB is going to move over 2C-2D-2S-3C-4S with 9xx, xxxx, Jxxx, Qx, as it did on the poll hand, what is opener to do with AKQJTxx, xx, AK, Ax? You have game in hand but if you bid 4S over 3C GIB will push on to an unmakeable contract. Once again the issue is that GIB can count points but cannot judge the value of long strong suits. No human would consider bidding over 4S with that hand, why does GIB insist on doing so?

Certainly slam isn't impossible with this hand. I would tend to expect though that trying for one will get you to more bad slams than good ones. But it is definitely a judgement issue not a system one.

Yes this I consider a normal Texas transfer. It wants to play in the suit game, not enough for a slam try. This is one area that GIB does pretty well. The other options after Texas are 4NT (RKCB) and any minimum new suit (Exclusion RKC). After Jacoby, a jump to game is a mild balanced slam try, 4NT is quantitative, new suits are natural, with single jumps in new suits being splinters. Simply for your information, none of this is new. This has been standard in 2/1 for more than 30 years.

Deleted

Definitely the former. Like you I don't know how GIB would interpret the 3♠ or 4♠ jumps. And of course playing "human has best hand" GIB never has a good enough hand to open 2C.

I like showing the club suit also. Perhaps a delayed splinter of 4D after 2NT.

Really? He was naive to think that his supposedly expert partner had read their convention card?

It's not uncommon that the descriptions are worse than the actual bids, and worse than the way GIB actually reacts to partner's bids. The entire experience could be improved significantly simply by re-evaluating and improving the descriptions, without a single programming change.

True the 2NT bid by GIB is ridiculous. I find your bidding quite strange also. I acknowledge that GIB doesn't handle splinters well so I can understand passing on that option, but your auction certainly sounds like 3 Spades only. J2NT will get you to the slam easily.

deleted

Well certainly there are differences, I doubt if GIB is programmed to be aware of them. 2S is the generic bid with 5+ Spades. 3S sets trump and asks for cue bidding. (Show an ace, bid 3NT with any side kings, raise to 4 with neither) 4S is a hand a trick better than a 4S preempt perhaps AQJTxxxx, AK, xx, x.